You have had enough of serious discussions, now let's play a game. The game is famous and is called Shubik's one dollar auction. Assume someone puts a one dollar bill on auction. Every thing is like an ordinary auction. There is however a single important difference: the second highest bidder has to pay his/her proposed price and receive nothing.
Once you have entered the game, you cannot stop bidding, because at the beginning you like to get the one dollar bill for almost nothing and at the end you bid, just to avoid being the second person who loses his/her money for nothing. Experiments show that people pay more than three dollars for the one dollar bill. This is a negative-sum game. In this game the winner loses, too.
This is a simple funny game which describes terrible situations like a war. When you gain victories you won't stop the war because you want more and when you lose, you won't stop it because you don't like to leave the war as a loser. Therefore, if both side are not wise enough to finish the war, it will continue until the termination of one side and the situation of the other side won't be much better.
Obviously, it is better to prevent entering such a game but sometimes we cannot avoid it because the other side starts the game. In that case, we should find an optimal strategy to leave the game. One solution is that a third person who is accepted by both sides, proposes a solution, which can satisfy both sides. This is similar to what the US wants to do for Palestine-Israel's game.
When such a third person is not available, a rational way to choose a policy is that we should know how much we will gain and lose if we play. Then we must estimate our power and how long we can stand against the opponent. We may use some randomness. Let's say we can choose a random number between zero and our maximum resistance time. Once we have chosen the length of resistance and the goals, we must play till then, neither more nor less. It does not matter if we will leave it victorious or not. This is a simple strategy, which works well; you can check it on Iran-Iraq war and see what would have happened if this strategy had been applied to the war. You can look at many cases from this point of view, US-Iran relation can be another example.
I also think the political battle in Iran is in this category. Both reformists and conservatives like to win and eliminate the other one. Both are wasting their power, credit and popularity plus our time and money in the game and both of them gain almost nothing. What is the solution, then? Is it possible to find a third person? Is there any proposal?